ENGLAND, THE PAPACY AND THE COUNCIL OF PISA (1404–1409)
In addition to neighbours and traders, the third major strand in Henry's foreign policy was Anglo-Papal relations. In one sense, this had become easier since the outbreak in 1378 of the Great Schism. Popes, whether Roman or Avignonese, feared losing the support of secular rulers and tried not to antagonize them, which meant inter alia that they were slower to throw their weight behind disputatious clerics, be they primates or parish priests. In the long term, this contributed to the spread of Gallicanism – the movement towards national Churches in which secular authorities arrogated to themselves more of the powers that had once been exercised by either the Papacy or the Catholic hierarchy in the name of a universal Church. Yet the Schism also made international relations more complicated, for it imposed on rulers the moral duty to restore unity to the Catholic Church while simultaneously anathematizing those with whom they had to negotiate in order to do so. Henry certainly wanted to resolve the Schism, but, like other secular rulers, he did not want that resolution to entail reversal of the gains made by the crown in extending its authority over the Church. Among those gains he would have counted the extension of royal justice to include criminal clergy and the limits imposed on the papal right to make appointments to the English Church. It was around such questions that the relationship between kings and their archbishops often turned.
Despite his service and commitment to the Lancastrian regime, Archbishop Arundel never forgot that he was first and foremost the head of the Catholic Church in England. Nothing tested his relationship with Henry as sorely as the execution of Archbishop Scrope. The right of clergy to claim immunity from secular justice was an issue which had caused controversy for centuries, most famously during the quarrel between Henry II and Becket in the 1160s. What was at stake in Henry IV's reign was not benefit of clergy (which covered felonies, and had been relatively clearly defined in the statute Pro Clero of 1352) but the vaguer concept of clerical privilege, especially in relation to bishops.1 What Scrope was accused of in 1405 was treason, and although treason was not clergyable (as the first convocation of the reign acknowledged), it was certainly not customary to put great clerics to death: Alexander Nevill, archbishop of York, and Arundel himself had both been accused of treason, in 1388 and 1397, respectively, but were exiled rather than executed. Nevertheless, convocation in 1399 expressed outrage at the way in which churchmen had been arrested, imprisoned and even hanged on the orders of secular authorities during Richard II's reign, and evidently expected better from Henry.2
A test case arose almost immediately: that of Thomas Merks, bishop of Carlisle. Despite pressure from the commons, Henry had been careful in October 1399 not to put Merks on trial in parliament along with the Counter-Appellants (of whose crimes some regarded him as equally guilty), but three months later, when Merks joined the Epiphany rising, he lost patience. Those who committed treason, the bishop was informed in the Tower on 28 January, would be dealt with by the law of the land, clerical immunity notwithstanding; a week later he was condemned to death.3 This was the first time since the Conquest that a bishop had been sentenced to death in England, and Arundel promptly summoned a meeting of prelates to register its disapproval. Adam Usk attended this meeting: ‘more crimes have been committed against prelates in England than in the whole of Christendom’, he fulminated, while Arundel reminded the delegates of the case of Thomas de Lisle, bishop of Ely, whom Archbishop Islip (1349–66) had taken by the hand and led away rather than allow him to stand trial in a secular court.4 Yet Henry had decided to make an example of Merks, and on 15 March wrote to the pope insisting that he be degraded and handed over ‘plainly and summarily’ to secular justice; if not, the king would proceed as he saw fit. During the summer, however, probably in response to Arundel's pleas, Henry relented, and on 28 November 1400 Merks was pardoned, although the king made it clear that this was only as an act of special grace, and he was not reinstated to his see.5
Yet if Henry eventually drew back from the ultimate sanction in Merks's case, his clemency did not extend to lesser clerics. In February 1401 the Canterbury scribe William Clerk was mutilated and decapitated for disparaging the king; June 1402 saw the hanging of the friars and other clerics for claiming that Richard II was still alive.6 This was the largest number of clergy executed at one time in England, and again Arundel responded. Three months later in parliament he and his suffragans presented a petition asking the king to confirm Pro Clero, specifically including ‘treason which does not concern the king or his royal majesty’, as well as common theft and highway robbery, among the crimes that ought to be clergyable, since it was an offence to God and a violation of ecclesiastical liberty to sentence clerks accused of these crimes in secular courts. Theft and highway robbery Henry was prepared to concede (thereby clarifying to the clergy's benefit a point which the 1352 statute had left uncertain), but in the case of treason, even if it did not directly concern the king, Arundel was told to consult with his bishops and, before the next parliament, draw up guidelines to ensure that they should not be allowed to purge themselves of their crimes and thus evade proper punishment. If Henry considered these guidelines inadequate, he would devise ‘another remedy, in such a way as shall become evident’; in other words, if the clergy did not ensure that treasonous clerks were suitably punished, then he would.7
Pending agreement on these guidelines, the issue of clerical immunity receded for a while, perhaps because the king stayed his hand – for example, in the case of the three abbots who conspired with the countess of Oxford in 1404.8 Then came Scrope's execution. High treason may not have been clergyable, but was Scrope a traitor? The parliament of 1406 had its doubts. Even if he was, did the Court of Chivalry (or possibly just an ad hoc tribunal of royal familiares) have the right to condemn him? Chief Justice Gascoigne had his doubts, and the rapid growth of the archbishop's martyr-cult suggests that many others did too. Was Scrope degraded before trial, as he should have been, or was his archiepiscopal cross simply wrested from his grasp? Such irregularities at once placed Henry on the defensive, and had Arundel not held back from publishing Innocent VII's bull of excommunication, a breakdown in Church–crown relations might have followed. Yet despite his opposition to Scrope's execution, Arundel still tried to save the king from the consequences of his action.9
It may be that Henry's hand was forced by retainers who threatened to desert him if Scrope was not put to death, but he had also had enough of clerical opposition to his rule and probably felt that a terrible example was required. Scrope's ‘army’ had included hundreds, if not thousands, of clerics, and well might the king have wondered what message it would convey to execute an earl for rebellion but to leave a bishop untouched. Yet whether or not his retainers really would have deserted him, those ‘knights who never loved the church’ were not simply figments of the chroniclers' imagination. It was not just Wyclifites who called for churchmen to be subject to royal justice.10 On the other hand, Gascoigne's refusal to condemn Scrope represented an approach characteristic of legal opinion in Henry's reign. He and his fellow Chief Justice William Thirning were generally careful to observe the jurisdiction of Church courts, and so, in certain respects, was the king, as indicated by his response to the episcopal petition of 1402.11 In legal terms, Henry believed himself to be within his rights in executing Scrope, for if it was treason of which he was guilty, it was decidedly treason of concern to the king. Whether it was sensible to do so is a different matter, but the fact that he managed, with Arundel's help, to contain the fallout, probably persuaded him that his show of force had been vindicated. In February 1408, when Lewis Byford, bishop of Bangor, the prior of Hexham, the abbot of Hailes and several monks and chaplains joined Northumberland and Bardolf's last rebellion, Henry treated them with circumspection, hanging only the abbot (who was a renegade from his house and was captured in arms) while pardoning the others, although Byford was imprisoned for several months and deprived of his see.12 Henry had made his point, and by and large he had got away with it.
However, it was not so much the issue of clerical immunity as the Statutes of Provisors, which deprived the papacy of both patronage and revenue, that led to England being described on occasion as a ‘disobedient nation’.13 In theory, the First Statute of Provisors (1351) forbade all papal provisions (appointments) to English benefices, and was given teeth two years later when the Statute of Praemunire outlawed appeals to the Curia. In practice, both Edward III and Richard II allowed limited evasion of the statute when it suited them to do so, although quite sparingly. A second statute in 1390 strengthened the penalties against those who sought provisions from Rome, but in the following year a moderation (soefferance) permitted the king to negotiate individual cases with the pope. What this meant was that he could issue licences to evade the statute or, if he wished, sanction suits against unwelcome provisions. Although it was only agreed for a trial period in the first instance, it gave the crown a loophole too valuable to be discarded and was renewed by Henry IV at the start of his reign.14
Yet Henry had to tread carefully, for this was a subject on which many in the commons felt passionately. Initially their hostility had been directed primarily against foreign provisors, who were not merely habitual absentees from their livings (or, if present, suspected of espionage) but also deprived the realm of bullion.15 From around 1390, however, it encompassed English provisors too, and there was growing emphasis on the misappropriation of alms and tithes, which should have been used for charitable purposes, and on the effects of non-residence on pastoral care and hospitality.16 Yet papal provisions also had their supporters. To Henry, they afforded a useful bargaining tool with Rome, and there was a widespread view, shared by Arundel and the king, that they were the best way to ensure the promotion of deserving university graduates.17 The problem lay in agreeing who was deserving. Royal clerks competed shamelessly with papal, episcopal and noble protégés, and lawsuits between them, sometimes accompanied by violence, were far from uncommon. Despite prohibitions on seeking benefices at the Curia, it was hard to prevent such disputes. Adam Usk repeatedly sought a bishopric during his four years in Rome (1402–6), thereby infuriating Henry; not surprisingly, he was an advocate of papal provisions.18 To characterize the problem as essentially a battle between pope, king, nobles and bishops for rights of patronage over the English Church is by no means unjustified, but risks ignoring the insatiable appetites of the clerks who sought that patronage, at times exploiting the legislation, at others evading it.19
Given these competing pressures, Henry was aware of the need for self-restraint, and for the first five years of the reign he used his soefferance sparingly, granting an average of less than ten licences a year to evade the statute. In June 1402, following discussion in the council, he promised to review the question in the next parliament and to abstain entirely from granting licences thereafter, but by March 1403 he was once again granting them, and two years later the number began to rise alarmingly, to 27 in 1405 and 64 in 1406.20 This produced a storm of complaints from the commons: reminding the king of his promise, they asked him never in future to grant licences for livings which were already vacant. These, as they pointed out, were the ones that caused disputes, since an English patron was likely already to have presented an alternative candidate.21 Henry promised nothing, however, and in October 1407 the commons once again submitted two petitions to the king begging him to uphold the statutes. The king agreed, but only saving his customary prerogatives – in effect, a rebuff. However, the number of licences he issued fell sharply after 1406, to roughly the same level as before 1405, and perhaps as a result the matter was not raised in parliament again.22
The likely reasons for the spate of royal licences in 1405–6 were, first, because Henry needed to placate Innocent VII, with whom he was embroiled in a number of disputes over episcopal appointments (to say nothing of the backwash from Scrope's execution), and, secondly, because he was short of money and such licences were a useful form of clerical patronage. Yet throughout his reign Henry showed determination not to allow the Statutes of Provisors to be applied inflexibly. Like kings before him, he wanted the freedom to negotiate individual appointments with the papacy. Nor would he have been insensible to the fact that the provisors legislation proclaimed the Englishness of the English Church and the primacy of royal authority over it. In 1409, during a lawsuit over a prebend at Salisbury, Justice Hankford remarked that ‘the pope can do anything’ (papa omnia potest); ‘That was in ancient times,’ objected Chief Justice Thirning, ‘but I cannot see how he by his bulls can change the law of England.’23 Henry VIII could not have put it better.
Despite their concern over provisions, the commons generally knew better than to interfere with bishoprics, a more lofty and complex matter.24 Four parties were involved in filling episcopal vacancies: the dean and chapter of the cathedral in question, whose theoretical right to elect their own bishop was frequently (but not always) overridden; the pope, without whose formal provision to the see no appointment was canonically valid; the primate, who admitted the chosen candidate and received his profession of obedience; and the king, who in practice usually had the greatest influence. All this made for a competitive and confusing situation.
Table 3 Episcopal translations in the reign of Henry IV25 |
Bangor: Richard Young (1398–1404); Lewis Byford (1404–8, but defected to Glyn Dŵr in 1404); Benedict Nicolls (1408–17) |
Bath and Wells: Ralph Erghum (1388–1400); Henry Bowet (1401–7); Nicholas Bubwith (1407–24) |
Canterbury: Thomas Arundel (1399–1414) |
Carlisle: Thomas Merks (1397–99); William Strickland (1399–1419) |
Chichester: Robert Reade (1397–1415) |
Coventry and Lichfield: John Burghill (1398–1414) |
Durham: Walter Skirlaw (1388–1406); Thomas Langley (1406–37) |
Ely: John Fordham (1388–1425) |
Exeter: Edmund Stafford (1395–1419) |
Hereford: John Trefnant (1389–1404); Robert Mascall (1404–16) |
Lincoln: Henry Beaufort (1398–1404); Philip Repingdon (1404–19) |
Llandaff: Thomas Peverel (1398–1407); John de la Zouche (1407–23) |
London: Robert Braybrooke (1382–1404); Roger Walden (1404–6); Nicholas Bubwith (1406–7); Richard Clifford (1407–21) |
Norwich: Henry Despenser (1370–1406); Alexander Tottington (1406–13) |
Rochester: William Bottlesham (1389–1400); John Bottlesham (1400–4); Richard Young (1404–18) |
St Asaph: John Trevaur (1394–1410, but defected to Glyn Dŵr in 1404); Robert Lancaster (1410–33) |
St David's: Guy Mone (1397–1407); Henry Chichele (1408–14) |
Salisbury: Richard Medford (1395–1407); Nicholas Bubwith (1407); Robert Hallum (1407–17) |
Winchester: William of Wykeham (1366–1404); Henry Beaufort (1404–47) |
Worcester: Tideman of Winchcombe (1395–1401); Richard Clifford (1401–7); Thomas Peverel (1407–19) |
York: Richard Scrope (1398–1405); Henry Bowet (1407–23) |
The episcopal bench which Henry inherited in 1399 consisted largely of Richard II's nominees, although Henry's reinstatement of Arundel to Canterbury in the autumn of 1399, presented to Boniface IX as a fait accompli, established a measure of control as well as making it clear that he would not allow Rome to push him around.26 During the next four years few vacancies occurred, and only one caused controversy. When the see of Bath and Wells fell vacant early in 1400, Boniface provided Richard Clifford, the keeper of the privy seal, while the king proposed his friend Henry Bowet. Deadlock ensued until the fortuitous death in June 1401 of Tideman of Winchcombe, bishop of Worcester, allowed both sides to save face: Clifford went to Worcester, Bowet to Bath and Wells. The vacancy at the latter had lasted eighteen months, hardly ideal from a pastoral point of view, but in the end Henry got his way.27
Such obduracy meant that when, in the years 1404–7, nine of England's seventeen bishops died, and three of the four Welsh sees became vacant through either death or defection to Glyn Dŵr – a three-year episcopal casualty rate unmatched during the late Middle Ages – conflict was likely, for this was Henry's chance to reshape the episcopacy. Yet initially things went smoothly. Winchester, the richest see in the country, vacated by William of Wykeham's death, went to the king's half-brother, Henry Beaufort. He was replaced at Lincoln by Henry's friend and confessor, Philip Repingdon, while Hereford, following the death of John Trefnant, was given to Robert Mascall, another of Henry's confessors. Rochester and London, which became vacant in April and August 1404, respectively, proved more problematical. Boniface IX translated Richard Young from Bangor to Rochester, but Arundel refused for nearly three years to admit him, perhaps because the king's first choice was Roger Walden, perhaps in the hope of preventing the papal candidate for Bangor, Lewis Byford, from obtaining that see, for he was suspected of sympathizing with Glyn Dŵr.28 When London became vacant a few months later, Henry proposed his privy seal keeper, Thomas Langley, while Arundel initially supported Robert Hallum, theologian and chancellor of Oxford University, although he later switched to the king's candidate.29 However, the new pope, Innocent VII (1404–6), ignored them both and provided Walden. Although this had the advantage of freeing up Rochester for Young, neither the king nor Arundel was satisfied, and both sees in practice remained unoccupied.
Matters were further complicated by Scrope's execution on 8 June 1405 and the subsequent excommunication by Innocent of those responsible. Wishing to offend the papacy no further, Henry quickly agreed to accept Walden for London, probably at Arundel's urging. Yet Scrope's death also created a vacancy for England's second archbishopric, and above all the king was determined to have his way at York. Thomas Langley (now chancellor) and Henry Bowet were once again his preferred candidates, and in July the York chapter agreed to elect Langley. The pope prevaricated, however, while Langley himself may have wished to wait until Durham, which he coveted, became vacant. He did not have to wait long: Walter Skirlaw, who had held it for nearly twenty years, died after a long illness in March 1406, and seven weeks later Langley was provided in his place after Bowet (who had also shown interest in Durham, a wealthy and palatine see) agreed to step aside on condition that Langley support his own candidacy at York. Another vacancy at London – which arose when Walden, having enjoyed his temporalities for less than six months, died in January 1406 – might have resolved the situation, but was instead reserved for Langley's successor as privy seal keeper, Nicholas Bubwith, whose claim to a bishopric the king now viewed as urgent. This was on 14 May 1406, the day Langley was provided to Durham, but Innocent VII did not stop there, for, on the same day he also provided Hallum to York. This put Henry in a quandary: he did not lack respect for Hallum – far from it – but with the disturbed state of affairs in the north he needed the two major sees there to be in the hands of men of proven political mettle, not theologians. Arundel, who had supported Hallum, was thus once again persuaded to switch candidates, and in August Henry Chichele and John Cheyne were despatched to Rome to persuade the pope to quash Hallum's provision.30
Arriving there, they discovered that Innocent VII had died and that a new pope, Gregory XII, had been elected. This was not necessarily a desadvantage, for Gregory soon fell out with his cardinals over the Schism, making it more important for him to placate secular rulers. However, he was not yet ready to compromise. The vacancy created when Henry Despenser, bishop of Norwich since 1369, died on 26 August 1406, presented another opportunity, but the chapter quickly elected their venerable dean, Alexander Tottington, whom the pope confirmed. The king in frustration imprisoned Tottington for several months in Windsor castle, declaring that ‘he would never suffer the said bishop-elect to enjoy the episcopal dignity’, but faced with capitular election and papal provision there was little he could do – a reminder of the limits to royal masterfulness.31 Thus only with the death of Richard Medford, bishop of Salisbury, in May 1407, did it become possible to clear the logjam. This time the government reacted immediately, despatching a messenger within days to the dean and chapter, and the swiftly taken decision to move Bubwith from London to Salisbury (effected by 22 June) undoubtedly met with the approval of both king and archbishop.32
This paved the way for the resolution of the outstanding issues between king and pope. In the autumn of 1407 Gregory XII, whose position at the Curia was now too weak to allow him to hold out, agreed to provide Bowet to York. This freed up Bath and Wells, to which Bubwith was now translated (his third see in fifteen months), while Hallum, abandoning his bid for York, was given Salisbury. At the same time, Tottington was released from prison and made his submission to Henry and Arundel during the Gloucester parliament.33 All this took place in October 1407 as part of an unofficial concordat between king and pope, which also encompassed the withdrawal of Innocent's bull of excommunication. Perhaps for appearances’ sake, the latter was held over until the spring of 1408, when Chichele, who, along with Cheyne, had spent the past year at the Curia brokering the Anglo-papal deal, was also provided to his first see, St David's; six years later he would succeed Arundel at Canterbury.34
Chichele's appointment also set the seal on a period of turmoil for the Church in Wales. Poor and war-ravaged (both Llandaff and Bangor cathedrals were gutted by fire during Glyn Dŵr's revolt), the Welsh sees were nevertheless sought after as a first rung on the episcopal ladder. Adam Usk tried for both St David's and Bangor, as well as the marcher see, Hereford, while he was in Rome. He eventually accepted Llandaff, but his provision went unrecognized in England since it had been made by the Avignon pope, Benedict XIII, following Glyn Dŵr's decision in March 1406 to defect from Rome.35 This decision confounded an already confused situation. John Trevaur of St Asaph had defected to Glyn Dŵr in 1404 and had not been replaced, and in 1406–7 the rival popes both provided candidates to Welsh sees, while Lewis Byford, although provided to Bangor by Boniface IX in 1404, was never recognized by the English and eventually joined Northumberland's last rebellion in February 1408; he was then captured and forced to resign. By this time, with Glyn Dŵr's fortunes ebbing, so too were those of the Avignonese candidates, and the appointments of Chichele to St David's, John de la Zouche to Llandaff, and Benedict Nicholls to Bangor, all in 1408, effectively signalled a return to normality – that is to say, bishops provided by Rome and supported by the English king.36
By 1407–8, therefore, Henry had, by and large, got the bishops he wanted. Those whose promotion he had especially sought – Beaufort, Bowet, Repingdon, Mascall, Langley, Bubwith – were a mixture of personal friends, spiritual advisers and high-ranking ministers; all were utterly dependable Lancastrians.37 The king's willingness to face down the pope and other interested parties, especially in securing Henry Bowet's two promotions, says much for his determination to transform the episcopal bench into the clerical arm of the Lancastrian affinity, as well as to ensure that his servants were given the status they needed. Scrope's execution made this more difficult, but filling episcopal vacancies was never straightforward. The ambition of individuals, the patronage of great ecclesiastics (for Arundel, it is clear, did not always follow the king's lead immediately, though he usually did in the end), the obduracy of a cathedral chapter, or the claims of even a weakened papacy were all capable of upsetting the king's plans. Such willingness openly to challenge Henry parallels the plain-speaking which he periodically encountered in parliament, even from well-wishers, and resulted in a number of undesirably long vacancies, especially at York – although these were not intolerable to Henry, for they could bring substantial profit in the form of sede vacante revenues.38 Moreover, some prelates probably paid for promotion. An anecdote remembered many years later told how the king once asked Henry Bowet why bishops were no longer translated from their graves after death (in preparation for canonization). Bowet said nothing, but a clerk who overheard the question replied that it was because whereas God used to choose bishops, now kings did; that whereas men used to accept episcopal office reluctantly, now they offered bribes to be promoted; and that whereas bishops used not to be translated from one see to another for larger revenues, now they paid money for the privilege. One, he said, was known to have paid two thousand marks to be translated from his bishopric to an archbishopric. Henry found this amusing, though not Bowet, to whom it referred.39
Despite their differences, neither king nor pope wanted an open breach over episcopal appointments. In the case of the Schism, a more fundamental issue was at stake: the integrity of Christendom. Everyone agreed that the Schism was a scandal, making the Church an easy target for heathens and heretics and hindering international peacemaking as well as ecclesiastical reform. Hitherto, English involvement in the quest for unity had been half-hearted. It was the French who had taken the lead, trying to draw Richard II into a scheme to withdraw obedience from the rival popes, and for five years (1398–1403), under Burgundy's influence, unilaterally severing their ties to the Avignon pope, Benedict XIII.40 During the first two years of Henry's reign, before war and rebellion overwhelmed him, he had attempted to persuade the new emperor, Rupert, to summon a general council to resolve the situation, but the escalation of Anglo-French hostilities from 1402 made international cooperation difficult, and the decision by Louis of Orléans in May 1403 to restore French obedience to Benedict seemed for the moment to dash hopes of progress.41 What altered the situation was the death in rapid succession of two Roman popes, Boniface IX (October 1404) and Innocent VII (November 1406). With criticism mounting, the Roman cardinals swore before each new conclave that whoever was elected would do everything in his power to achieve unity, including resignation if necessary. Innocent VII's pontificate was too brief for him to be put to the test, but eighteen months into Gregory XII's reign it was becoming clear that he had little intention of keeping his promise, and in May 1408 most of his cardinals deserted him. In the same month, with Orléans out of the way, a great council in Paris once again withdrew French obedience from Benedict XIII.42
Present at this meeting was Henry IV's representative, William Lord Willoughby. This was not the first sign that the English king was now serious about taking action over the Schism. Cheyne's and Chichele's embassy to the Curia in 1406 included a stop in Paris to try to coordinate a plan of action, and when he discovered that Innocent was dead the king wrote to them again (and to the college of cardinals) expressing the hope that a new conclave might be delayed in the interests of unity. If, however, an election had already taken place, he advised circumspection: ‘We would not wish,’ he wrote, ‘to be either the first or the last in such an important matter’ – that is, the question of whether or not to recognize the new pope.43 By the time his letter arrived, however, it was too late, and for the next fifteen months it probably suited him quite well to deal with an increasingly beleaguered pope, for all the time the momentum for change was building. Henry and Arundel worked closely through this period: if it was the king who took the lead, there is little sign that the clergy resented this.44 From late May 1408, when Henry heard that Gregory's cardinals had left him, events moved quickly. On 24 June the king ordered the withholding of the payment of papal annates. A few days later, Canterbury and York convocations were summoned to St Paul's and the lords and knights of the realm invited to join their deliberations.45 English interest in the Schism was now awakened, and the meeting on 29 July was well attended. ‘Arise! Why do you sleep?’ was the theme chosen for the opening address. ‘We in the kingdom of England,’ declared Arundel, ‘have done little as yet to work for union, as a result of which England's reputation has declined.’46 Conference responded, extending the withholding of annates to all monetary payments, and shortly afterwards the king wrote to Gregory threatening him with a complete withdrawal of obedience if he did not fulfil his oath.47
Arundel probably favoured the immediate withdrawal of obedience, but Henry was not yet ready to commit himself. The crucial decision was whether or not to send an English delegation to the general council which the cardinals had summoned to meet at Pisa on 25 March 1409. Henry's caution was well advised: since the autumn of 1407 Gregory had accommodated the king's wishes, and an English decision to attend the council would jeopardize cooperation if matters went awry, as they often did when England and France tried to work together. In August 1408, Gregory made a final attempt to win over the English king, assuring him that he, too, planned to summon a general council and would abide by its decision, but his credibility was spent. The cardinals' riposte was to send Henry's friend, Cardinal-Archbishop Ugguccione of Bordeaux, to the English court. Greeted with pomp and reverence, Ugguccione addressed the enthroned king and a great gathering of nobles and clergy at Westminster on 28–29 October, reminding them of Gregory's broken promises and warning that those who continued to support him would share the perjurer's guilt and be accounted fomenters of the Schism, which was tantamount to heresy.48 He had already been to Paris and reported that the French intended to go to Pisa. ‘The holy college’, he concluded, ‘urges and pleads with you to show your devotion [and] make provision for the prelates of your realm to attend the said council.’ Within two weeks, Henry had made up his mind, although he still wrote to Gregory exhorting him to swallow his pride and attend as well. To mark this triumph of Anglo-French cooperation, an eighteen-month truce was agreed on 31 October.49
Once the decision to go to Pisa had been announced, convocation was summoned to choose the English delegates, but scarcely had it met (on 14 January 1409) when the king fell gravely ill. Arundel, who had been hoping to resign the chancellorship in order to attend, therefore decided not to go, and instead Robert Hallum, now bishop of Salisbury, led the English delegation.50 It was a deft choice, for Hallum's rhetorical skill and wider vision of what might be achieved earned much respect at Pisa. Precisely what this first general council of the Church for a hundred years could be expected to achieve was, however, an open question. That it would depose Gregory and Benedict was almost a foregone conclusion; that it would then proceed to the undisputed election of a new and mutually acceptable pope was widely anticipated; and in fact both objectives were achieved without difficulty, so that on 26 June 1409 it was announced that Peter Philargi, the Franciscan cardinal-archbishop of Milan, had been elected as Pope Alexander V. This was satisfactory as far as it went, but Hallum and some of the other English delegates – especially Henry Chichele, Thomas Chillenden, prior of Christ Church Canterbury, and Thomas Spofforth, abbot of St Mary's York – hoped that the council would then move on to a discussion of ecclesiastical reform, in anticipation of which Hallum had encouraged the Oxford theologian Richard Ullerston to write a tract as a basis for discussion.51 Entitled Petitiones Ricardi quoad Reformationem Ecclesiae Militantis, this set of sixteen proposals was, at the request of the king's confessor, Roger Coryngham, presented to Henry IV, and it is likely that he approved it.52 But it was not to be: there was some discussion of reform before the council broke up in early August, but having achieved their main objectives the delegates saw their task as securing recognition for the new pope. Even this, however, proved difficult: since Pisa had recognized Wenzel as emperor, Rupert declined to recognize Alexander as pope, and then, by a cruel stroke of luck, Alexander V died suddenly on 3 May 1410. The Schism had not been healed after all.53
Ullerston's Petitiones are nevertheless a guide to what leading reformers within the English hierarchy believed to be necessary, and what is striking about them is that whereas continental reformers, broadly speaking, were concentrating at this time on reform at the centre (the Curia, papal bureaucracy, the camera and its financial apparatus), the emphasis in the Petitiones was on reform at the diocesan and parochial levels.54 It was matters such as appropriations and the disruptive effect of papal dispensations, exemptions and privileges on the spiritual life of dioceses and parishes which constituted the main thrust of Ullerston's argument. Bishops, their ordinaries, and other local people should be consulted, he declared; most appropriations were unnecessary and should be annulled; indeed, the whole question of privileges should be reviewed.55 Reform at the centre was undoubtedly necessary too: simony was a great evil in Ullerston's view, as were annates, both symptomatic of Curial avarice. Yet the Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire had given the English a shield against claims of papal sovereignty, so it is not surprising that it was with diocesan and parochial matters that English reformers were principally concerned; and they had, in Henry, a king who shared their concern.
Although these issues were discussed at Pisa, probably on Hallum's initiative, little or nothing was done about them. Yet if this was an opportunity missed, and if Alexander V's death subsequently took the shine off its success, the Council of Pisa marked a turning point in the search for a solution to the Schism. It was the first time that a general council of the Church had met without papal summons, and it was the harbinger of its more celebrated successor, the Council of Constance, which met five years later and finally ended the Schism.56 Especially notable was the role of the great powers, the French and English kings, in making it possible. There was obvious danger in this for the papacy: the risk of increasing state control, of monarchs browbeating popes or legislating to exclude their influence (as the English had done) – the danger, in other words, of national churches replacing a universal Church – and to some extent this happened in the fifteenth century, so that it was as much Gallicanism as Conciliarism that Pisa heralded. And while Anglo-French cooperation soon evaporated in the heat of political rivalry, this shift in the balance of power between Church and state in England would prove more enduring, evident not simply in the lead taken by Henry IV in the debate over the Schism but also in the question of reform at the national level.
1 J. Aberth, Criminal Churchmen in the Age of Edward III: The Case of Bishop Thomas de Lisle (Pennsylvania, 1996); L. Gabel, Benefit of Clergy in England in the Later Middle Ages (New York, 1964 reprint), 35, 58–9, 122; J. Bellamy, Criminal Law and Society in Late Medieval and Tudor England (New York, 1984), 116–17.
2 Concilia, iii.243–5; Records of Convocation IV, 204–6 (for treason, see article 55).
3 Also convicted were Richard II's chaplains, Maudeleyn and Ferriby, executed on 29 January; the ex-primate Roger Walden and the abbot of Westminster were tried but acquitted; Henry Despenser, bishop of Norwich, was imprisoned, but not brought to trial (SAC II, 296–8; CE, 387; Foedera, viii.123; Wylie, Henry the Fourth, i.108–9; Select Cases in King's Bench VII, 102–5).
4 Usk, 92–4.
5 POPC, i.115–17 (BL Cotton Cleopatra E. II, fo. 255); Foedera, viii.150; CPR 1399–1401, 385. He was released on 26 January 1401, the day Canterbury convocation opened (Select Cases in King's Bench VII, 105).
6 Usk, 122–3. Clerk was condemned in the court of chivalry, which employed summary procedures. Above, p. 208.
7 PROME, viii.177–9 (cf. Records of Convocation, iv.246, 249–51). The clarification relating to common theft and highway robbery focused on the inclusion of the words communes latrones and/or depopulatores agrorum et insidiatores viarum in indictments against the clergy, for which see Gabel, Benefit of Clergy, 58–9, and R. Storey, ‘Clergy and Common Law in the Reign of Henry IV’, in Medieval Legal Records in Memory of C. A. F. Meekings, ed. R. Hunnisett and J. Post (London, 1978), 343, 361.
8 Above, pp. 262–3.
9 Arundel also helped to discourage the development of a martyr-cult at Scrope's tomb in York Minster (D. Piroyanska, ‘Martyrio Pulchro Finitus’, in Richard Scrope: Archbishop, Rebel, Martyr, ed. P. J. Goldberg (Donnington, 2007), 100–13, and C. Norton, ‘Richard Scrope and York Minster’, in Richard Scrope Archbishop, Rebel, Martyr, ed. P. J. Goldberg, (Donnington, 2007), 138–213, at pp. 109–12 and 171–8.
10 CE, 392. Fasciculi Zizaniorum Magistri Johannis Wyclif cum Tritico, ed. W. Shirley (RS, London, 1858), 256; SAC II, 591; M. Wilks, Wyclif: Political Ideas and Practice (Oxford, 2000), 29–31.
11 Storey, ‘Clergy and Common Law’, 343–4, 351–2; PROME, viii.179.
12 Wylie, Henry the Fourth, iii.153–8; SAC II, 530–5; Foedera, viii.520, 545; CPR 1405–8, 464, 471, 488; Usk, xxxv.
13 W. Lunt, Financial Relations of the Papacy with England II, 1327–1534 (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), 381–408 (quote at p. 399); P. Heath, Church and Realm 1272–1461 (London, 1988), 125–33, 213–18, 261–3; Storey, ‘Clergy and Common Law’, 346–52, 368–80, 408 (appendix of cases under the Statute of Provisors); N. Foulser, ‘The Influence of Lollardy and Reformist Ideas on English Legislation c.1376–c.1422’ (unpublished PhD thesis, University of St Andrews, 2004), 67–139.
14 Henry may have tried to convince the commons to repeal the provisors legislation (perhaps hoping, like Richard, to make a concordat with Pope Boniface), but he was reminded in the parliament of March 1401 that this was not what had been agreed: PROME, vii.190, 195; viii.61, 108, 119–20; POPC, i.111. In November 1398, Richard II had attempted to strengthen the royal hand, the pope agreeing that he would not appoint bishops contrary to the king's wishes, although that did not mean that he would always provide the king's nominee: R. Davies, ‘Richard II and the Church in the Years of Tyranny’, Journal of Medieval History I (1975), 329–62, at pp. 355–7; this concordat lapsed with his deposition.
15 The figure of 20,000 marks or £20,000 was frequently mentioned: Foulser, ‘The Influence of Lollardy’, 87–8; see also A. Barrell, ‘The Ordinance of Provisors of 1343’, HR 64 (1991), 264–77.
16 See below, pp. 368–71.
17 Concilia, iii.241–2, 245; Lunt, Financial Relations, ii.402; CPR 1401–5, 324.
18 Usk, 126–7, 176–7.
19 Storey, ‘Clergy and Common Law’, 350–2.
20 Lunt, Financial Relations, ii.402–3, supplemented by Z. El-Gazar, ‘Politics and Legislation in England in the Early Fifteenth Century: The Parliament of 1406’ (unpublished PhD thesis, University of St Andrews, 2001), 240.
21 PROME, viii.386–91, 398–9.
22 PROME, viii.433–4, 446–7; Lunt, Financial Relations, ii.404.
23 J. E. Tyler, Henry of Monmouth (2 vols, London, 1838), ii.41–5 (judgment went for the crown); Heath, Church and Realm, 132, 217.
24 R. Davies, ‘After the Execution of Archbishop Scrope: Henry IV, the Papacy and the English Episcopate, 1405–8’, BJRL 56 (1977), 40–74.
25 Ineffective provisions excluded.
26 As did his admonition to the pope over the latter's over-hasty provision of William Strickland to replace Thomas Merks at Carlisle: R. L. Storey, ‘Episcopal Kingmakers in the Fifteenth Century’, in Church, Politics and Patronage in the Fifteenth Century, ed. R. B. Dobson (Gloucester, 1984), 82–98, at pp. 83–6. For Strickland, see POPC, i.115–17, but Henry's rebuke was mainly on procedural grounds, for he did not object to Strickland.
27 This was the only occasion when parliament spoke up for an episcopal candidate, Clifford, though unsuccessfully (PROME, viii.108–12; R. Davies, ‘Richard Clifford’, ODNB, 12.105–7). See also the letter in ANLP, no. 289, concerning a debt of 2,000 marks due from Clifford to the Albertini, which states inter alia that he had never had possession of Bath and Wells. The king told Arundel not to write to the pope on Clifford's behalf.
28 C. Allmand, ‘A Bishop of Bangor during the Glyn Dŵr Revolt: Richard Young’, Journal of the Historical Society of the Church in Wales (1968), 47–56. Young was a member of the Privy Council, crown lawyer and diplomat, and the failure to admit him to Rochester cannot have been on personal grounds (R. Davies, ‘Richard Young’, ODNB online (added May 2007)).
29 RHL, i.415–16 (Arundel's face-saving excuse was that he was unaware that Henry was supporting Langley).
30 SC 1/43/98 is Henry's letter mandating Chichele and Cheyne to go to Rome, but he mentioned that they also had further instructions which should remain secret (and see BL Cotton Cleopatra E. ii, fos. 262–3).
31 ANLP, nos. 316, 344; Davies, ‘After the Execution of Archbishop Scrope’, 65–7.
32 These letters ‘intimately concerning the estate of the king’ bore the seals of Arundel as chancellor, Bubwith himself as treasurer, and Langley as bishop of Durham (E 403/591, 1 June 1407). Bubwith was replaced at London by Richard Clifford, who in turn was replaced at Worcester by Thomas Peverel, both apparently without difficulty.
33 The professions resulting from most of these promotions and translations in 1407 are to be found in Lambeth Palace Library, Arundel Register, i, fos. 37–42. Richard Young was finally admitted to Rochester on 2 March 1407.
34 CPR 1405–8, 426; CPLe face, the pope stated that Henry had Scrope executed in order to avoid further violence, and that the archbishop had been judged according to the law. There were no further episcopal casualties in England between 1407 and 1413.
35 Usk, xxvii.
36 Nicholls succeeded Byford at Bangor; Chichele replaced Guy Mone, who died in 1407; and Zouche replaced Thomas Peverel, who was translated to Worcester. Trevaur continued to support Glyn Dŵr, and not until after his death in 1410 was the situation at St Asaph, in the heart of rebel territory, resolved with the provision of Robert Lancaster.
37 However, Henry never secured a see for John Prophet, despite trying (Heath, Church and Realm, 267).
38 In 1406 (probably the most lucrative year), 2,000 marks was paid into the king's chamber from the temporalities of York; 1,000 marks to the exchequer from Skirlaw's executors for Durham; and almost £600 in two tranches from London, again to the exchequer (E 401/638, 26 June, 28 July; E 401/639, 24 Oct.; E 403/589, 4 Dec.). The king also exercised his right of appointment while sees were vacant: for example, he made John Prophet dean of York in November 1406 (CPR 1405–8, 285).
39 Gascoigne, Loci e Libro, 21–2; cf. Davies, ‘After the Execution of Archbishop Scrope’, 69.
40 Above, p. 120. M. Harvey, Solutions to the Schism 1378–1409 (St Ottilien, 1983), 93–105.
41 Harvey, Solutions to the Schism, 106–8, 117–23; PROME, viii.159.
42 For Innocent's troubles in Rome, see Usk, 204–6; Wylie, Reign of Henry IV, iii.1–37, 337–71, describes Gregory's and Benedict's dealings with their cardinals 1406–9; Monstrelet, i.255–8, for the Paris council.
43 E 403/587, 18 May 1406; E. Jacob, Archbishop Henry Chichele (London, 1967), 7–8; for Henry's letters, dated 18 January 1407, see RHL, i.141–3 and BL Cotton Cleopatra E ii, fos. 262–3.
44 Harvey, Solutions to the Schism, 8, 145, 193–4.
45 Lunt, Financial Relations, ii.412–13; Harvey, Solutions to the Schism, 133–46; the lords and knights were to communicate with convocation pro unione ecclesie sancte celebrandum (E 403/595, 11 July 1408).
46 Records of Convocation, iv.323–5. The upsurge of English interest is reflected in the chronicles, notably SAC II and CE, which until 1408 had said very little about the Schism, but in 1408–9 said a great deal about it.
47 BL Harleian Ms 431, fos. 14r–v; CE, iii.412.
48 Ugguccione made a great impression in England (SAC II, 538–57; CE, 412–13). At his arrival, Henry summoned his retainers to ride in the cardinal's comitiva, ‘for the king's honour’ (E 403/596, 8 Nov.). Ugguccione's retinue included 46 horses (E 404/24, no. 480).
49 Foedera, viii.551–60.
50 SAC II, 557–65.
51 The English sent some thirty-five delegates in all to Pisa, prelates, canonists and civil lawyers, chosen by the convocations and the king. Not all of them were reformist at heart, but most of the leaders were. It is not clear whether Ullerston's tract was actually taken to Pisa, but it was certainly written for praesens concilium and was commissioned by Hallum for that purpose (Harvey, Solutions to the Schism, 151–65).
52 After hearing of Alexander's election he wrote to him begging him to continue the council in order to address ‘certain detestable abuses’: E. Jacob, Essays in the Conciliar Epoch (Manchester, 1963), 74–84.
53 Harvey, Solutions to the Schism, 184–5.
54 Jacob, Chichele, 10–13; Harvey, Solutions to the Schism, 165–73; J. Catto, ‘Wyclif and Wycliffism’, in The History of the University of Oxford II: Late Medieval Oxford, ed. J. Catto and R. Evans (Oxford, 1992), 238–45.
55 Below, pp. 368–72; for King's Bench overruling a papal privilege, see Storey, ‘Clergy and Common Law’, 390.
56 Harvey, Solutions to the Schism, 2–3.